and exburban voters. we'll discuss the conservative view of national defense and funding for efforts outside of the united states. later, david armor looks at the impact of school deseg gags. washington journal is next. .

working and how roadside bombs are having an effect on american troops. "the wall street journal" has an opinion piece called "curb corruption or lose the war. " unless corruption spurred that the national and local level the u.s. will lose. what do you think? the numbers to call -- you can also e-mail us. and we are on twitter. "curb corruption or lose the war" from "the wall street journal."

the author of "why vietnam matters. " he draws on his own experience in vietnam. he starts out by saying --

so, what do you think? curb corruption or losing the war? will that be putting the american effort in jeopardy in afghanistan? "the wall street journal" has this piece. the piece says --

our question for you this morning, is there a danger in the u.s. losing the war in afghanistan do to problems of corruption, and bought more perhaps by the cia, trying to do the right thing and aligning itself with informants, but did they take advantage of the system? "the washington post" has an excerpt modified from "obama's wars." uc and in this year, president obama visiting arlington national -- you see in this here, president obama visiting

arlington national cemetery. the peace in "the washington post" says -- so, we are seeing a little bit of the behind-the-scenes give- and-take, the discussions happening as president obama tries to decide what direction to take last year, plotting their strategy. it starts off by saying the president was on edge. for two exhausting months he was

asking commanders to give a range of options for the war of afghanistan. instead, they felt -- he felt they were staring into one outcome. and their goal was to get 40,000 troops and an expanded mission in afghanistan. let's get to your calls. right here in washington. ralph, good morning. caller: yes, ma'am. i think we ought to be more worried about losing the war in the united states. we nominated a new fda director whose husband was involved in three hedge funds. the made off case, the guide testified said the fda was captured. we just watched a drug godown the tubes because it had 38 million shares voted against it by hedge funds, so they pulled

crooked stuff. security and exchange commission that is captured. we better start looking at home before we look overseas. host: we will talk more about overseas issues. but we want to take a moment to check in with dan friedman from national journal and congress daily. on this monday morning, congress ought this week, doesn't look like they will wrap everything up and head home in terms of getting back on the campaign trail for the election season? guest: i think both houses are expected to leave thursday evening, and all likelihood heading back to the campaign trail by friday. host: one of the questions was extending the bush era tax cuts. will we have a vote on that or will not have to wait until what meat -- may be a lame-duck session? guest: certification will not vote on it and senate, so it will have to wait until the land dodd session.

speaker pelosi said she has not ruled out the chance of a vote this week in the house. but it is not clear whether it will happen and it will certainly not happen in the senate. so that will have to be dealt with in the lame duck and leaders and both houses said they plan to do this. host: what will be the motivation for speaker pelosi to move forward? guest: she says she thinks it will be a useful vote politically, for one. liberal members in particular things they are voting on -- tax cut for individuals -- families under $250,000 and individuals under 200,000, that would be beneficial to them that republicans vote against it. they think that would be a helpful contrast. there is a lot of dissension there is a lot of dissension among democrats about whether -- host: what has to be done this week? guest: a continuing resolution

that would keep the government running through the lame-duck session when congress can come back. an extended again with another clinton when resolution. because they have not passed an appropriations bills. fy 11 appropriations bills, a continued and resolution that will likely continue funding federal agencies at the current levels. levels. host: nasser reauthorization tenet -- any prospects of that moving forward, and nasa reauthorization? guest: i know there has been some efforts to get involved. it is going to be tough. guest: we have seen debate and discussion over some of the big issues in front of us right now, like tax cuts. well members of congress used this week to get a message across? guest: in the senate they are going to bring up an anti- outsourcing bell that as three

different pieces to it that tweaks the tax code to try to the storage outsourcing of manufacturing jobs or to encourage in-sourcing by countries located overseas. democrats wanted to talk about that bill. where republicans appears set to oppose it. democrats think it is a good message for them to be on. and republicans once again are siding with big firms. that will also be an excuse for republicans to say we ought to be extended the tax cuts rather than dealing with less significant pieces of legislation. >> as members prepared to head back to the district to campaign or how the other members that are in competitive seats, is there a position that they need to have as they go home,

something that needs to happen where republicans and say we were able to hold thing up for democrats saying they were able to get something accomplished in recent weeks? is there any wonder that could go home at the end of the week depending on what happens? guest: i think it will be difficult for the overall dynamic to change. what democrats have been doing in senate is losing votes, they lost the cloture vote on it disclosed act, then lost the cloture vote on the defense authorization that included the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." and they were hoping to add at the dream act. more than talking about what they have been able to do recently they are going to be talking about what they have not been able to do because they claimed that republicans blocked it. but the seconds and of the issue is certainly the tax issue. it will be interesting to see how what plays out. if the house does touch it, that will certainly be the most signal again vote probably those guys take a month or two months

before the election. host: thank you for being with us. senate leadership reporter for the national journal and congress daily. joining us to preview the week ahead. our question for you this morning is based on a "wall street journal" editorial, "curb corruption or lose the war." quite a bit reporting about what is happening to the afghan war. this from "usa today." ied's showed troops surge working. the report says that --

let's go to wisconsin. robert, independent line. caller: the corruption is not just in afghanistan. this whole military corp. complex, industrial complex, is just riddled with corruption, from the united states over there. and these people are making billions of of this war. and look at the results. nothing is accomplished. in a few years the people will be pulled out. look at iraq. take an example. the billions spent.

money all representative off. and the people still don't have electricity. host: the uc a solution? how would you change things? caller: let's go back to george washington where he said no foreign entanglements. what did george washington mean by that? he said -- men you don't get involved in these countries over there. ron paul is absolutely right. why are we involved in afghanistan trying to rebuild their roads when we don't have any schools or roads in the united states? host: the numbers to call -- "usa today" reports that u.s. soldiers and marines in helmand and canada are encountered numerous i e d's or improvised -- helmand and kandahar

encounter numerous improvised explosive devices. of the question is are these fatalities from roadside dime -- roadside bombs assigned the u.s. is making inroads in places they previously did not have success. a brigadier who commands ground forces and helmand province says -- taliban fighters suffered submitting casualties when they battle coalition troops. then they peppered the fields and orchards with ied's during the night. when that happens, the taliban tend to fall back, and such minefields are a last-ditch effort to hold off defeat, they say. the enemy would be glad to box off and put an area of mine field all the way around us.

we will get back to your calls in a moment. "usa today" has a graphic, improvised explosive devices on the rise. of 2008's august versus 2009 and this year. ied incidents back in august of 2008, 4000 -- 439. last year, 1067. august of this year, more than 1200 attacks in afghanistan. montana. a bill on our democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: curb corruption or lose the war, is that a danger we face in afghanistan? caller: i think we ought to forget about the war. host: why is that? caller: we ought to pull out of their altogether. these politicians are worrying about losing face. about losing face. they should forget about that

and do the best thing for the world in this country. h. court -- host: de think that will be getting out? caller: we get out of the war caller: we get out of the war and get away from all of the -- 9/11 never would have happened if we did not have all of those bases over there. host: long beach new york, joe, independent line. caller: you keep using the word war. we are not -- there is no state of war. only congress could declare war. we have invaded those countries. we are presently occupying the country. presently killing people and the countries and getting our own young people killed. i want to make another point, obama made a big deal of only leaving 50,000 troops in iraq. that is a lot of people. but you news media, i considered you people the fourth estate. you inform us, keep us apprised of what is going on but you made no mention of how many black water troops are still in iraq

or how many halliburton or how much money is being wasted there. first of all, please, stop using the war -- were the war, said the occupation is not going well. host: the reason why we are using the term more because we are quoting from this " wall street this "piece -- "wall street journal" peace. he is asking if corruption is going to be such a problem there that it could actually undermine the war.

as we mentioned, rufus philips is someone who served in vietnam and various government agencies from the 1950's brought the 1960's and he is the author of "why vietnam matters." going to cleveland, ohio. our next caller is laura. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with some of the callers. we are spending too much money and other countries dealing with their wars and problems and still we have all of these problems here facing in america. we all talk about the political game. it is not political game. it is about all of us being americans try to come together and unify so we can be a strong

nation. host: south carolina. john, independent member. caller: how were you? host: 5, thanks. are you concerned corruption could jeopardize the effort in afghanistan? caller: i would take it one step further. we as americans -- not just republicans and democrats -- we need to examine why we are even there because the and the russians just spent 17 years over there and they could not conquer and set up a viable government. what do we think we are doing and how long do we think it will take? host: one of the callers mentioned the iraq war. let us look at a piece in a the "the new york times."

so, still waiting for leadership in a wreck. houston, texas. kathy, democrats line. caller: i am a military mothers i will give you a little info. host: thank you. caller: killing 3000 innocent women and children a month in afghanistan. afghanistan. karzai's brother is so corrupt

and c.i.a.-backed, by the way. i want to know after 9/11, what gave us the right to attack afghan, pakistan, yemen, somalia, iraq, and you notice there has never been a trial. this i would like to see the ksm trial as soon as possible because i would like to know if we it actually raped and killed the children or we did not. host: let us go to jasper, tennessee. good morning. caller: i just got done reading sebastian young girl's book. book. er's the contractor that we are giving the money to talk about corruption. it is ridiculous.

why are we blaming -- we can track the money from iran because we want to go to war with iran but we are fighting the saudi arabian and pakistan, our allies. host: book she is talking about is "war"from sebastian junger. the brother of hamid karzai being probed by u.s. prosecutors. they did not know where he may fit into the web of illicit business dealings. but officials say they mapped to 3000 of hours of wiretaps and informations from informants and tens of thousands of pages of documents seized in weight -- raids on afghan businesses.

damon, a republican , minnesota. caller: i just wanted to agree with the previous caller, sang this is not really a war but an occupation. from our new bond is published papers, it is a disappointment. host: we lost him. ray, independent line in michigan. caller: i believe that the corruption is only one of a number of factors that affect how the war is going in afghanistan and it is actually afghanistan and it is actually going to make of the war worse

with the corruption. since it is essentially a civil war in afghanistan, the likelihood of winning any of thing is just a remote. i agree with all the previous callers who feel that it is not in the best interest to be there, especially considering the state of our economy. host: what would you consider winning today? caller: for me, there is no winning because the fact of the matter is, we really do know -- don't know how many so-called taliban there are, how many cockeyed and there are. we really don't know that. host: looking at some other stories in the news, in "the washington post." tax-cut vote likely set for after the elections.

looking at some other stories in the news -- americans warming up to the health care law. from "usa today," looking at how americans are feeling about the health care law signed into law. it is more popular but the public now but the majority of americans are still confused about the provisions. you can see how popular opinion in the country has shifted. the september, 49% of americans have a favorable opinion compared to back in april when 46% of americans had a favorable opinion. let's go to tony on our democrats line in mississippi. good morning. curb corruption or lose the war. caller: corruption and lows the war.

i it -- you lose the war. i am looking at it like this. this whole war thing when it comes to why we are over there in the first place. it is more or less the government, as far as the government and it comes down to, we have no business there. that is the reason why we're there. host: as a democrat -- i don't know if you had a chance to look over the new information that came out in bob woodward's book, looking at how the president wanted to have a smaller number of troops and military advisers wanted more but the president held at a smaller number. do you agree with his idea to send in a surge of the type that he did? caller: i am in between on that because i think all of our troops should come out. i think we should pull them all

out. host: advocating to pull out all of the troops. that was tony in mississippi. let's go to maryland, waldorf, darnell is on the democrats' line. caller: all you have to do is listen to what the republicans don't say. they don't want to do things for the american people but they loved the fact we are going to war. obama did not really want to go into afghanistan, i don't believe, but i believe he had to to placate the warmongers. host: would you have liked to have seen him do something different? caller: i wish he had the fortitude to say no, i am not sending troops into afghanistan. you are never wrong for not going to war. there is nothing wrong with taking your time and seeing how things really are and choosing not to fight. host: let us look at what the

president will be up to this week. he does plan to sign a small business jobs bill and then he would travel to albuquerque, mexico, meeting with a local family to was the discussion about the economy. he will also host a democratic rally in madison, wisconsin. we will talk about that with a guest from "the washington post." he also plans to meet with local families in richmond, virginia, and iowa, to talk about the economy, and do some more campaigning here at home and washington. on friday, a ceremony for justice elena kagan that the supreme court. speaking of the supreme court's newest justice, "usa today" reports that she first is -- faces the first supreme court test today.

where with no law clerks are sectors present, to decide which cases to take up later how they should be resolved. and a first of the private sessions for the new term, which officially begins october 4, they will slip through thousands of appeals filed over the summer to decide which should be job -- granted hearings. the conference room is where all of the most and poor decisions of the most and poor decisions are made and they are made by the nine justices and no one else -- the most important decisions are made and they are made by the nine justices and no one else. many justices speak about how intimidating the first sessions can be. in hawaii justice anthony kennedy says the first conference with the new justice can be and sandi producing for veteran colleagues as well. -- anxiety-producing for veteran colleagues as well. let's go to eric from albany, new york, on independent line. good morning. curb corruption or lose the war.

talking about afghanistan. do you think the u.s. is in jeopardy of getting their efforts endangered by corruption issues? caller: i think that is just one part of the problem. the fact of the matter is, it is being fought in a way that cannot be won. host: what would you like to see different, eric? caller: there needs to be -- if you look at the way the country was founded by the european colonists, by systematic extermination of indigenous population that resisted you. this is the way wars are won, they are brutal. we killed millions of japanese in world war ii to win that war. it could not been one any other way. and did a that you are going to win the hearts and minds of afghan people is just insane. it is not going to happen. host: ok. from "the new york times," another story, but u.s. working to ease a wiretaps on the internet.

we will be watching to see where that goes. another story in the national ms. liberal groups plan to rally on the national mall. it comes to us from "the new york times." this week and on saturday, predicting a crowd of 100 -- hundreds of thousands, including a naacp, afl-cio, la raza, and national day and lesbian task force are

sponsoring a march to transform the conversation so it focuses less on the tea party. american samoa "the new york times" says, after glenn beck but before jon stewart. our next caller is from hawaii. steve, democrats line. a good early morning to you. caller: help. -- hello. if you were talking about corruption and people talking about invading, and the united states invading foreign countries. so, they have been invading hawaii and occupied malaya for more than 100 years. the hawaiians here are still fighting them. and i think there is plenty of corruption in the government's

in iraq and iran or afghanistan. and in hawaii. if we were and to deal with what the military altogether, we would be better off. host: talking about the military's role and how conservatives are viewing funding the military. you might enjoy that conversation. that will be later on in "washington journal." democrats line in detroit. thank you for being with us. caller: i am calling from detroit. thank you so much for taking my call. my question has to do with, who determines what win means. they say when we win. if we don't stay there until the end, we lose. what is win? if we are going to stay there and send these children and grandparents and everybody off to war, we should have a draft and start with our legislature's children, them first.

it should be the first ones to bear this burden. if you can't tell me what win means and you are not sending your child or a loved one over there, don't ask me to send mine. host: a comment coming to us from twitter. we have been talking about afghanistan and the situation. coming up next, though, we will turn are intended to more domestic issues. we will be looking of voter attitudes across that the -- america, especially the suburbs as we had to the midterm elections. we will be right back. >> c-span's local content vehicles travelling the country, visiting communities and congressional districts, as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. >> the second congressional district of virginia is in the

far southeast corner of the state. it takes in virginia beach, the largest city in virginia, and parts of norfolk, virginia, hampton, and an area known as the eastern shore which is basically a couple of rural counties, primarily farming and tourism areas. it has some manufacturing but the dominant industries -- industries is the navy and tourism. at the oceanfront, there is a very vibrant tourism committee with hotels. it is not as large as myrtle beach but that type of community, that is a source of income. u.s. navy and related military enterprises is its largest business, i would say, and probably for this region. this particular congressional race is of high interest of republicans and democrats. when glenn 9 -- glen nye was first elected, since his election, he has been subject to a steady stream of blogs, e- mail, and that make -- not at

him but in the public blasted almost everything he does. because the is a freshman, legislative experts will tell you that the best time to unseat an incumbent is during the first term because they have not quite establish themselves. they see him as a mobile. republicans want to take back the view of the house of representatives. this is one of the districts where they see they can have an in to do that. >> i am left with two clear impressions from my experience in the field and that is, one, i am absolutely confident in the capabilities of both our military forces and our civilian forces, to successfully run a counterinsurgency program in afghanistan. my other impression is i am left with a very serious concern about the fact that our success here is largely dependent on what happens on the other side of the border, in pakistan, where our civilian and to a large extent military forces are not really present. >> in this year's congressional elections, glen nye is seeking a

second term, facing a republican who has an active in the republican party but this is as first time running for office. he is a self-made multimillionaire holds car dealerships in the region. the third candidate is kenny golden, an independent candidate, who has a long career in the military and is making his first bid. glen nye, who is a native of the area -- grew up in norfolk, and he's been to his adult life in the far and service, working overseas before coming home to work for congress. when he took office -- democrats in control of the house -- they gave him choice spots and house armed services committee, veterans affairs, and small business committees. all committees that have a direct impact on this area, both in terms of veterans issues and military. since he has won, he fastens and

is up as a moderate. he voted for the stimulus plan in early 2009 but voted against the democratic health care plan and also voted against what is known as the cap and trade environmental legislation. he voted against the democrats drafted federal budget last year because he said was too expensive. those views are consistent with how the campaigns, but he drew some fire from democrats, specifically on health care. republican component, scott rig el, has not run for office before but he has been actively involved in the republican party. a very strong donor to the party. because it has the resources to do it financially, he has backed many candidates with significant contributions. among his personal friends beyond just politics as the current governor, bob mcdonnell, who campaigned with him or earlier, even in the primary. rigell, before he could run in the general election, had to win a primary against five other candidates. he has been campaigning cents a year ago.

he set aside his dealerships. turned it over to an executive to visit -- of this company. and that has been his job essentially. he has also invested some of his of significant wealth, some of his own wealth in this. he has contributed more than a million dollars and not the direct donations and loans is campaign. this-i said that he is not going to be outspent by his account -- opponent. >> always started the business. how we ran the primaries, coming up to virginia beach and everything we owned in a u-haul trailer, that is true. we have a real privilege to go through the university and start a business in a recession. we laid down some solid principles i think in our business of leadership by example. i started parking way out in the gravel parking lot just in a way to show leadership by example. to set a servant mine said. that was the same principle i learned in 1978 in paris island, that little resort off the coast of south carolina. it is all-inclusive.

you get off the bus -- the ninth [laughter] the got it all plan for you the next three months. >> rigell is a conservative, both economically and social issues. he opposes the health care plan. he talked about joining efforts to repeal it if elected. he wants to listen business regulations. very much -- he would like to see business unleased by a lot of regulations and it would help the economy grow. he wants to appeal -- he once the lower taxes, particularly on capital gains. like nye, he is a strong supporter of military, very strong supporter of that iran issues, which in this district, you must be, whether you are democrat or republican. the third candidate, he started out as a republican. he was running in the primary, which was last june but dropped out months earlier to run as an independent candidate. before he dropped out -- or before he was even a candidate,

he had been active in the local republican party. he at one point was head of the virginia beach branch of republican party. as an independent candidate, he is running on his service record. a decade of service and the u.s. navy. and he has been very active in local politics and knows a lot of people. it doesn't have a lot of campaign funds that he is very actively campaigning and he has a group of people working pretty hard for him. while he doesn't have the funds he is running full time -- he says he does not want to be a spoiler, he wants to win. kenny golden has, by stepping away from the republican party, has upset some republicans who feel that he should not be doing this, that he should back to their candidate. but by the same token, he has his own supporters, many of omar republican to feel the has the right to run. >> to show i am an ex- republican, these are the last vestiges of the republican party and i kept this because this is

a republican symbol from south africa, my friends from south africa brought me back this, so this is the only message i kept. and i did keep one of these, which is the post a we had made up for mccain and palin in 2008. and these were made up for $1 apiece. we have 1500 made up and they went in a couple of hours, they were gone. and we actually won four mccain and palin in virginia beach. that is all i keep >> both parties, depending on how this election goes, would perceive it as a message about president obama. -- it is his policies drawn in

the middle of this debate, even though, for example, glen nye did not vote for the healthcare bill. people on the republican side campaigning against it and want to use against him, and not -- the legislation himself. in some ways this is a referendum on the president's policies. as this election turns out, it may turn -- say something about obama's chances in virginia in 2012. >> c-span's local content vehicles are travelling the country, visiting communities and congressional districts as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. for more information, go to c- span.org/lcb. "washington journal" continues. host: philip rucker is a correspondent for "the washington post." you travel to colorado earlier

this month to talk to voters in the suburbs, where there are shifting opinions about the president. talk to us about what you found out about that district. guest: we went to a subdivision called reunion, out near the airport of denver, about 20 miles outside of the city. brand new. a bill about six or eight years ago. -- built about six or eight years ago. this is where democrats did well in the last two cycles. we saw this in northern virginia, suburbs outside philadelphia, outside of las vegas and phoenix, even, this is where democrats were able to win over voters with a common sense kind of agenda, practical approach to making the middle- class better. what we found is a lot of residents there are falling on tough times and switching their loyalties. they are not necessarily tea party people, so they are not angry -- i talked to about two dozen residents of the subdivision who were political independents, and they did not say anything hateful about the

president or that they were voting the tea party but they were critical of the president. it's good he said they were not tea party identifiers. -- host: yu said that they are concerned about everyday issues that affect their lives. how important of the suburbs or this area of this country -- not urban america or rural america, more of a middle-class enclave. guest: it is critical for both parties. it is where the growth is. not necessarily the closed in suburbs that have been established for a while. these are the emerging bedroom communities outside the major methods but didn't -- metropolitan areas and neither political party can win without them. an expert we talked to said the battle of re-election comes down to how far out the democrats can push their ring of dominance of

around the big cities. in to the other six and in 2008 it posted far out into these emerging suburbs and republicans are showing they might be able to push the line back in a word. if democrats are limited to only the urban corps in america, they will not be the majority party. host: the latest "washington post" and abc news poll -- is that what you heard echoed as you talked to folks in colorado? guest: to some extent. some people said they voted for obama, supported obama and were absolutely going to vote republican down the ticket this fall. but there were a lot of people who supported obama who said they did not make up their minds yet. if it were a little turned off by some of the candidates in, right. the senate republican nominee ken buck was a favorite of the tea party movement and he had some views and some of the voters were a little worried about what they are definitely disenchanted with the democrats,

obama. they feel like there was some overlap -- overreach. host: duke spoke to the co- director of brookings mountain west who study the suburbs. they want government to be light, effective, tailored to their needs. the give democrats a chance in two cycles but not necessarily loyal to anybody. what is going to win these voters over? you have a sense of what the message is they want to hear in the next few weeks? guest: they want somebody who as going to have a practical approach to fixing the economy. their home values may be declining. they are not necessarily unemployed but have not had a raise in the last couple of years. they are falling on some hard economic times and they are frankly really sick of the partisan bickering in washington. they want candidates who are going to take a common-sense practical approach to everyday issues that mattered to them. and, frankly, they are not

finding that in either party. the question between now and november, which party candidates can win them over with a good approach. host: the pugh research center has information about independent's -- opinion. 36% of these considered themselves conservatives. how is the independent's changing mood affecting the election? guest: they are shifting in a big and important way to republican candidates. democrats did very well, last two cycles by winning over these independent voters and now they are going almost two to one to republicans, some democrats have to look elsewhere to make up

their margins. i think it is important to note that these voters we talked to in colorado and others across the country are a little turned off by the republican party's approach to social issues. that is one of the reasons why they fled the republican party and the last two election cycles. cycles. it will be really important to see whether the gop whip the tea party energy can still maintain these independent voters. host: philip rucker, washington post reporter, national political correspondent. the numbers to call -- you also have a story in "the washington post" today for which washington post" today for which you travel to madison, wisconsin, previewing what we will hear from the president as he tries to increase enthusiasm. an important bloc, the surge of voters. guest: these are people defined

as having voted for the first time in 2008. they may be were not part of the political process. they certainly were not part of traditional party politics. but they came out for president obama in his presidential election, a really historic moment in the country. they were excited and enthused and came out and supported him. it is up about independent voters a few minutes ago. they are fleeing the democratic fold. as of the democrats in order to win in these close race is really have to turn out these obama surge voters and that will be really difficult for them because these are not voters will have any history of voting with the democratic party. they voted for barack obama, and that was their presidential candidate and now he will have to transfer that good will to candidates like russ feingold in wisconsin. host: he is in an embattled election. he says he is optimistic and moving forward but that is a very contentious race. guest: it is. and he is behind in the polls. as is tom barreett, the mayor of

milwaukee running for governor. wisconsin is a state that obama won 56-43%, a huge margin of victory in 2008. and his popularity there, as across the country, has really declined. at age, let us go to portland, oregon, and hear from the knees. caller: i of what you call a surge boulder, i voted for the first time for obama. the first time in very many leave it -- years. the people i know in my income bracket, just barely making it, did the same thing, because he promised so much and the lot of people are very disappointed. people i know, because he has not gone all the way on the things he talked about, especially health care. like it is in england or other countries. a lot of people that i know are deciding to vote on issues this time instead of voting for

president and see how that goes. they will probably vote for president, too, but it seems to be more important -- host: do you plan to vote this year? caller: yes. host: have you made up your mind? caller: not on all of the issues, but some of them. host: let us go to robert, republicans lined in texas. good morning. caller: just had a comment and a question. the comment was, i while ago when we were talking about a when we were talking about a suburban people in colorado, the germans said they were not tea party people -- gentleman said they were not tea party people but then he listed the things that the tea party was interested in, they were interested in. it means, they did not go to rallies and things like that. what i find where i live -- i live in texas and a small town -- is that almost everybody's in -- is interested in what he mentioned and almost nobody is interested in the president's

policies today. host: let us get a response from our desk. guest: what i mean saying they are not tea party people is that they are not active in the movement. they are not going to protests, not going to meetings, not organizing are around the tea party movement like so many other americans in the country. but they still are turned off by the president did they think he has overreached. they thought he would be a consensus seeker, middle of the road, pragmatic chief executive and they believe he has not been. they believe he has pursued too liberal of a path. host: our first caller was disappointed but the president did not pursue a more liberal agenda, or stop to an issue like a public option when it comes to health care. are you seeing that as well? guest: we see some of that. the first caller really spoke to this idea that people who voted for him thinking they were going to get this dramatic change right away. people, either they feel like he has been too liberal or to

moderate in seeking consensus with republicans. they all kind of agree they have not seen this dramatic change they would get. but they have to understand, it has been only two years and you cannot change things that clip -- quickly in washington. the administration will study they have done things to change. host: do you feel like americans have been as eager to see things happen quickly in the past? when we see in past election cycles, the president of the democratic party went, for example, bill clinton, and when republicans take over congress, is that in patients or urgency is a recurring theme or is it heightens right now? guest: i think it is-and i think it is partly because of a heightened sense of urgency of the 2008 presidential campaign. obama had this message of the urgency of now. he really set the expectations very high for people. and he brought in a lot of new voters in the fold. a 50 million americans who never voted before came out to support

him in 2008, and that was because of the urgency of his message. and i think they are seeing things moving a little bit slower and of some cases not really at all and it went to see it change. host: brenda on the independent line. your honor with philip rucker. caller: i wanted to ask him in his interviews with the people in suburban colorado, did he find that rates might have been a factor in some of what the decisions? because clearly we know that there has not been enough time for this president to do all that he spoke about during the campaign. host: asking if the president's race is a factor? guest: an interesting question. i did not find that to be true. most of the people lived in a reunion were white but there

were some african americans and asian-americans who i interviewed who felt the same way about the president and the democratic party. they did not appear that any other their feelings were driven in a race in any way. and nobody really had hit all things to say about the president. of all wanted him to succeed. and they all felt like they had a stake in the success of his presidency. they are just disenchanted. host: writing about what will happen as wisconsin, you say when obama steps on the grassy clod of the university of wisconsin he will deliver a newly taylor, more personalized appeal, according to white house and senior democratic officials. one notes due he feel like he has to hit? guest: montauk into these people who voted for him -- in talking to these people voted for him, he has to make this about him and thus its failure -- success or failure of his presidency.

we saw in 2009 but the governor's races in virginia and new jersey and the senate race in massachusetts, it was not simple enough for the president to draper's arm around a democratic candidate and say martic locally supports my martic locally supports my agenda so boat -- creigh deeds supports my agenda, vote for him. he has to say my presidency is under attack and you need to come out and vote or else everything you did in 2008 will be in jeopardy. that is what he will be doing tuesday. host: the timing of this, is this some of the white house thinks they should have done earlier or is the timing crucial right now to get people excited? guest: they have the five weeks left. they don't want to peak too soon. if he started doing this a couple of months ago, that might have been a little early. but that said, there is not a lot of time here. they're trying to maximize this particular event. the tuesday rally in madison is the first of four big rally is holding on college campuses are

around the country and will be simulcast at 200 other college campuses where student activists and democrats are having watch parties. he is deploying vice-president buy into speak at penn state at the same time. democratic party chairman tim kane will speak at the university of delaware at the same time and some other cabinet secretaries will be out across the country, so they are trying to maximize this tuesday event to gin up the energy and enthusiasm. host: massachusetts. independent line. go right ahead. caller: i don't want to criticize nobody or no party. there is one thing that upsets a lot of american people, especially as middle-class people. the two parties fight constantly all the time. and they say we are going to work across the lines, they don't work across the lines. host: are you hearing that? guest: absolutely. that was a common and widespread fame in, roddick, at

this subdivision called reunion. a lot of people said they voted for obama because they thought he was going to be a different kind of politician. they thought he would be billed to come to washington and have a bipartisan agenda and work with republicans and get along and make this change have been in a bipartisan way. as we have seen, it has not happened. partly because the republican leadership it is also clear to the voters, democrats are just as partisan as the republicans. frankly, they are sick of it all and are looking for a candidate who can rise above that and have some promise of a bipartisan approach. host: we have been hearing a lot about how the anti- incumbency sentiment among americans may bring in more republicans. but are there democratic candidates that you see riding that wave we need to get rid of

the usual and put in some fresh faces? guest: there are some, it is unclear who they might be. you look at the list of the 80 house seats that are the targets for both parties, and only five of them are held by republicans right now. so we are not seeing a lot of democratic challengers surging in the republican-controlled seats, but we will see. host: charles in winston, south carolina. caller: i have three statements that i would like to make. it is about the truth between democrats and republicans. i am an old man now. when i was a young boy, my grandfather told me, you live

under a democrat philosophy, and you will wait for things that you'll never get. you'll never get. if you wait -- live under a conservative philosophy, you can have everything you want and more. winston churchill, he said if you are a democrat under 30, you do not have a heart. if you are over 30, you are a fool. then margaret thatcher said socialism never works because you spend all the people's money. that is the truth. life has been good for me because i have tried to live that way. host: it sounds like he has not had much political movement. are you seeing people that are sticking by their principles, not wavering, when many are?

guest: i think the bases it on both sides are pretty hard in, particularly on the republican side -- the tea party. side -- the tea party. host: pew research center asked whether or not the president was a factor in their decision to vote. it looks back to 1994. 8% said it was for, 19% against. this past month, 16%.

29% see this as a vote against of september. as what do you make of those numbers? calleguest: it is interesting. it shows that this election is perhaps more national than others. the democrats are really trying to make these about local issues. they believe they can win. they believe a lot of the nominees from the tea party movement are so far to the right, have such extreme views, if you make every election a choice between the democratic candidate and a republican, they think they can win in debate. what they do nothing they could win is a referendum on the obama

administration. when you look at a state like nevada and you have harry reid overing lighfor his life there, and then you have sharon angle who came out of the tea party movement come and democrats are desperately tried to make this a race between them two, and not about the obama administration. host: next phone call. caller: i have not been involved in politics too long, but i have been paying attention. the republicans are so much against president obama that anyone would have conceded. and it is a racial thing.

in a black community, we know is going to take some time for president obama to do that. we are going to wait for him. guest: he really speaks to something that a lot of the voters who have supported him feel right now, that he has not had enough time to turn things around, has not been given a fair shot. he inherited a country in financial distress come and two years is just not enough time to make the world a better place. as far as the race element, that has been a criticism out there. i think the suburban, independent voters we are talking about do not view it that way. i think they are looking at the economy, their personal issues. host: when you were in

wisconsin, you spoke to a student, 21 years old. she had waited on campus to see the president in 2008, but now the excitement has dawned down. -- dumbed down. this is the kind of person that the president will be wanting to target as he visits these various campuses. is there a movement among republicans, tea party activists, to get a fresh face of college-aged students excited about republican platforms? guest: i did not see that at the diversity of wisconsin, which is more of a liberal campus. both parties are trying to reach both parties are trying to reach them, but it has been easier for

democrats. that's do it you mentioned is representative of the into the dozen gap we are seeing across the country. she waited for hours in february to see the president at the basketball arena. he said, that could change the world, and they did. they did all kinds of volunteer work for his campaign, and now she may not even vote. host: comment on twitter. jim writes -- you can call in with your questions. june, chicago, independent line.

go ahead. caller: i have never called in before. my biggest problem is, someone earlier said that obama did not have enough time to do what he needed to do. i am on disability, i am middle aged. since obama took office, i lost my home, i am a mother of two. in december of 2009, i got a letter stamped by president obama that said that there was obama that said that there was no increase in the -- what is the word he used -- in the

economy. there would be no increase in my disability. disability. get out of town. a loaf of bread last year is going to cause the same as this year? host: do you hold the president responsible, your local politicians? because he signed the letter, i do hold him responsible. guest: there are people suffering everywhere. everyone is looking for someone to point a finger at. unfortunately, the president is in charge, and his policies may not have led to this economic recession, but i think a lot of voters are looking to blame him and the democrats. host: we have some numbers on

exit polls, looking at the age of voters. 66% went for democrats. 32% went to republicans. you talked about how essential this youth vote will be for the president. do you have an idea of how these numbers may shift? guest: strategists that i spoke to, if they get engaged, will vote for the democrats, especially in a state like wisconsin, where most of them are pretty progressives. i think there is a general feeling that the republican party is not speaking directly to the students. to the students. in terms of health care, you can

stay on your parents' plan. there is student loan reform. democrats believe the challenge is getting these people to get activated. they think they can make up a few points in these races. host: ann in athens, texas. caller: hello, i am a republican. i am so disenchanted with the republicans. this has been coming down the pike for the last year. obviously, we lost with obama going in there because of what happened during the eight years of george bush, and as much as i

adore him, some of the decisions that had to do with 9/11. he was partly involved in those. guest: the republican brand, as damaged as the democrats are, the republican brand is just as damaged. people are not flocking to the republicans because they believe they are standing up for them. they're moving away from the democrats because of these issues we are talking about. you look at a state like north carolina, which swung heavily against obama, where independents are fleeing the democratic party.

the fact that a republican incumbent could be struggling in a state like north carolina in this cycle is an example that people are not drawn by either party. host: we go to georgia. kenneth, republican line. are you with us? caller: yes, i am from college park, georgia. i would like you to hold him to these three comments. this is what i would have liked to know. informed theou people that the republican party has fought obama on every single piece of paper that he has proposed? he cannot get anything done.

like don't you feel president obama has had more people against him in washington since he took office than anyone before him. -- before him? do you think that ever since he came into office, the tea party, republican party, most people in washington have voted against president obama? guest: it is not my job to make opinions, sway voters. that i am trying to learn about what is affecting them that may influence the way they vote. the washington post" has made it clear that there is an agenda by republicans on capitol hill to

oppose the president, almost lockstep on every turn. that is not new to our readers. as far as the race question, that is not my job to describe this as racial or not. i think a lot of people, the fact that the president has such a different background from a lot of americans, his own personal story, -- it is really not my position to make a statement on that. host: antoine. you are next. caller: i feel like in many

instances, the problems of the economy came from the last administration. what is happening in the economy is a result of what was happening in the bush administration. from let's get a response that question. is there a chance from democrats to hearken back to this message that it was really the bush administration that got us to this place? are voters tired of hearing that? guest: i think that democrats will continue that. i think anybody looking at the economy would include, of

course the economy started falling before president obama took office. that is one of the reasons people elected him. but i think voters are, nonetheless, looking for someone to blame, they are not seen the type of recovery they thought they might see -- frankly, the administration thought they might say. president obama has been there for two years. if you want to hold anyone accountable for the state of the country, it is him. host: north carolina. randall. caller: good morning. i wanted to say a couple of things. if i was a republican running for office, i would get the clips of democrats knocking on doors. obama's policies failed for a

reason, nobody agrees with them. we are not a socialist country. we do not even want to go that way. host: the message of socialism. certain groups are calling him a socialist. is that having an effect? guest: it is gaining some traction. perhaps in the tea party, but not within any of the types of voters that we have been talking about. speaking to these voters in the suburb in colorado, many of them voted for obama, and i did not think a single one of them talk about socialism. they are disenchanted about what is happening, but the people who believe he is pursuing a socialist agenda are the types haveople who would nenever

voted democrat anyway. host: philip rucker recently reported from colorado, documenting what is happening in the state's seventh district, getting reaction from voters who voted for president obama. detroit, michigan. tanya, good morning. caller: i cannot wait until november to vote. i will be voting straight democratic. i have seen what the republicans have done. it is no, no to everything. i have never seen any other president go through what obama has had to go through. guest: i think this caller speaks to how obama's core

supporters feel right now. frankly, this is what the president is trying to make these search voters feel at these rallies. he wants to make people feel that the presidency is under attack. he wants them to help defend him, keep his allies in there, keep the changes that he has started, continuing. host: 40% of independents are leaning republican. about 35% and leading democrat. it looks like there has been a significant crossover in the last couple of years where independent voters started to lean more republican. is there a question, if

democrats are able to retain the house, does it give them more steam that they have not lost the independents? do you expect a different washington if democrats can retain the house? guest: if democrats could retain control this fall, it would speak more to the failures of the republicans. if republicans are not able to capitalize on the national climate to winning control, that is as much a failure on their ability to recruit good candidates and run smart campaigns, as much as it is a success for democrats. host: skip in indiana. caller: i am a small business

owner. with this new health care plan and also of this new tax bill, we are going to be taxed on it. $250,000 is not a lot of money. i have two kids in college. i am running a business. i am just making it. host: how much is the issue over bush era tax cuts resonating with voters right now? guest: to some extent, it is resonating. both parties see an advantage. republicans see it as a way of painting democrats as only wanting to raise taxes. democrats see it as a court fight for the middle-class, keeping taxes lower for middle-

income people. but i think it is more broadly about the economy, unemployment rate, what they are seeing in their neighborhoods. the health-care fight is an element, and taxes, but they are not being swayed on any one issue host. host: frank, republican. baltimore. caller: this is kathy. host: you are calling from dallas? caller: yes, good morning. i wanted to address the lady from illinois who said she did not get a raise. well, my mother did not either. it is not obama's fault that she cannot buy a loaf of bread.

what was she doing under george bush? she should be able to pay for her house. that is not obama's fault. to the man with the small business, if your business was doing so great under the bush tax cuts, you should have been making more money and hiring people. people say things that do not make much sense because it is only for their own interest. obama did say there would be some changes, we do not know how they are going to work yet, but you cannot do the same old same old. guest: it is an interesting point. point. we said this earlier, people are looking for someone to blame, and the president, democrats are the party in power.

what is happening in the economy is bigger than any single person, a single administration. this is a dramatic change in the nation's economy, and it began before president obama, may continue after president obama. host: a twitter on the stimulus -- is that having any residents voters? guest: it is. many people see the stimulus more as deficit spending. republicans see it as a runaway, out of control deficit spending. but in colorado, a democratic congressman is campaigning are they on the stimulus. we have all of these new things in our district. there will be a new v.a.

hospital facility, there is investment in renewable energy, and that is all possible because of the stimulus. i went can this thing with him, and he explained some of the local benefits from the stimulus, and people's views started to change, they started to understand, this is actually helping the economy, and they get past the big headlines. get past the big headlines. host: you write -- some commitment, but not willing to go all the way. guest: that is indicative of this enthusiasm gap that we are seeing. they may not necessarily be

losing their core independent supporters that they had before, but people are not out knocking on doors and putting up signs, like perhaps they did two years ago. host: frank, baltimore. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. the last person who called in complained about race. i wanted to say, 95% of us voted for barack obama. most racial groups. we think everybody else does not see the way we do. what i wanted to ask was, isn't it true that there is no president in recent history that has had this kind of majority in the senate and house? even if the republicans vote no all day long, they cannot stop

anything if the president wanted to. so we have a failure on the president's party and leadership. guest: he does have a huge majority in the house, a big majority in the senate, too. the problem in the senate is you do not just need a majority to make law, you need 60 votes in order to prevent a filibuster from the minority party. democrats have only 59. we saw with the election of scott brown, the massachusetts senator, it has been much more difficult for the democrats in the senate to get their legislation through. host: are people acknowledging that no matter who wins in the fall, there will be tight margins in congress? in the advertisements i have

heard, if the republicans win, it is not like they can do anything they want. guest: there has been so much partisanship on the campaign trail, here in washington, it will be tough for the two parties to work together in january when a new congress is sworn in. democratic strategists who are looking to president obama the reelection in 2012 are thinking, if republicans can win the house, they will be accountable for what they do and do not accomplish. with such a small majority in the house, it will be tough for them to get their agenda through and work with democrats. it sets up a boil that could benefit the president and democrats two years down the road. host: philip rucker, with ""the

"the washington post." thank you for being with us. we will be speaking to danielle pletka with aei. first, an update from c-span radio. >> members of the oil commission will look at uses of chemical dispersants, the moratorium on deepwater drilling, and who was in charge of making critical decisions in the cleanup. more regulations are being drafted that would require all on-line communication services to comply with wiretap orders, that would include encrypted e- mails, networking websites, and direct communications. the white house has plans to submit the bill next year. turning to the war in afghanistan, officials say nato

helicopters launched attacks into pakistan today, killing 50 militants. nato justifies the strike based on the right of self-defense. those are some of the latest headlines. >> "the communicators" has a discussion on strengthening personal law that limits personal data collection. every weekend, experience american history tv, starting saturday at 8:00 eastern. here historic speeches by national leaders, eyewitness accounts that shaped our nation.

history professors and leading historians delve into america's past. every week on c-span 3. every week on c-span 3. host: danielle pletka, the foreign and defense studies at the aei institute. you have a piece which you wrote with thomas donnelly. conservative and national defence. do you see the traditional conservative voice as being supportive of national defence? guest: i do. since the end of world war ii, republicans have been -- conservatives have been a strong defender of defense resources. that is traditionally the role that conservatives have played. host: you say in the peace --

piece -- with the demise of the soviet union, that force pulling people together, the clarity that it give us, understanding what the fight was overseas, has diminished. as we seek to find our voice, as new groups, like the tea party, rise up, there is some tension between fiscal conservatism and national security resources in the. that is the tension that we try to outline in the peace. it is a question of whether this fiscal stringency that we need at this very moment should also apply to expenditures on national security. which way we go will say a lot about our role in the world. host: you also write --

do you see this as a movement that may contain ground, that the economy comes first, defense second? guest: these two things are not really mutually exclusive, and the people that we talk about are not he does of national security. i think people need to understand, particularly as we fight the war in afghanistan, on terror, as we have a military that needs the types of equipment that will lead us into the 21st century, resources will be needed. that does not mean fiscal irresponsibility, and we can no longer/and burn. host: you can join the

conversation. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. have you had conversations with tea party supporters on a regular basis, are you hearing a lot from them as you talk about strategy, defense? guest: i talk to a lot of people. the tea party is really a grass- roots movement, so we cannot take a leader of it. that is one of its strengths. part of the problem we have is there is always a misunderstanding of where people are coming down inside this movement. do they want us to get out of that stand as -- afghanistan? are there people who want to cut our defense spending? are there others that are concerned about the deficit?

i think what tom and i wanted to do was put to make a shot across the bout. you cannot expect people to support vast amounts of money unless you explain what it is all about. host: your areas of expertise include the middle east, south asia, focusing on terrorism, weapons proliferation. what do you think should be done in the war in afghanistan? guest: we, in washington, are taking a long time looking through bob woodward's most recent book. looking about the politics. the truth is, politics is not the most important thing when it

comes to the war. it is about fighting, making it is about fighting, making sure we have the right strategy, so that we have the right resources necessary to achieve victory. i am worried about the course of the war. mostly, i am concerned about the president's deadline. i feel it is arbitrary but he is committed to it for political reasons. host: alan in alabama. caller: i believe we need to get everyone out. there was a so-called conservative caller from texas that talked about winston churchill. he was a liberal democrat. we need to look back and

realize, over 50% of obama's the agenda was stopped in its place, we could have been a lot further in the economy, had a couple of republican senators been more cooperative. it is incredible how they are destroying our economy. guest: i am not an economist or a politics observer either, and unfortunately, it was a little bit hard to hear you. i think i heard what you said. of course, winston churchill was not a liberal. but that is not so important. what is important to understand is when you set a deadline and you say that we are going to

draw down on a date certain, regardless of the conditions on the ground -- and the president has not said regard this, but he will look at the conditions on the ground. even though the u.s. and our allies may gain territory, achieve substantial victory on the ground, we will pretty much be done and you can come back by then. that is not a good strategy. i think we should be committed to driving down troops, that is one victory is about. host: don, independent line. good morning. caller: i have a friend who is a contractor in the iraq from last afghanistan. he made $900,000 in four years.

he also delivered a suitcase of $100 bills totaling $3 million to afghanistan war lords. his opinion is we will never do anything to win in iraq, afghanistan, pakistan. guest: i think you and your friends experience highlight a serious problem. it is a problem in the intelligence community and defense department. the first is the problem of contractors. we need reform in this regard. the fact that we are paying contractors more than soldiers on the ground, the fact that there is not sufficient oversight, that things keep on going on without any rectification. i know secretary gates is committed to addressing this, but at the end of the day, every secretary of defense has said that, it is about doing something. about delivering money to

warlords, this has been a strategy in afghanistan since the 1980's. it does not work. you are only renting people. we need to deliver the type of security that the afghan people are looking for. i think you highlight two serious concerns. i hope general petraeus -- who i think recognizes these problems -- is going to help these issues. host: next phone call. caller: you have probably answered all the questions that i was going to ask, but what i do not understand is your point about the division about whether conservatives want to go into war.

whether you are part of the tea party or republican conservative, the idea of the economy, as opposed to going to war, i do not see it as one is more important than the other for a conservative. the main problem is the economy and whether they should have spent all this time doing health care. guest: i am glad to hear you say that. we tend to be trapped in a bubble, and here in washington. i do not get to hear as much as i would like to what people around the country feel about these issues.

one of the reasons we wrote this article is we have been hearing about politicians in the republican party and elsewhere who have suggested that the time for american leadership is elsewhere. it is time for someone else to stand up. is it really worth it? should we really be out there? i think that those are not positive ideas for america, not positive for the republican party. party. that is one of the reason we wrote the piece, but i am glad to hear that you do not think it is an issue. host: the latest journal of "the national journal" looks at the race of republican candidates, looking at variety of things. it does look at foreign affairs. all of the candidates, except

for three support the troop increase, oppose a timetable withdrawal. guest: that is great news. one of the things that we hear is this is not being discussed, and that is a problem. lindsay graham gave a great speech at the american enterprise institute last week, and he made a couple of great point about the war. we have that captured a single high-value target in the last couple of years, we do not know what is coming. we are killing people, but we do not really know what al qaeda is thinking about. i think that deserves to be among the national conversation with our candidates. we should also be talking about progress against other

movements. there have been several attempts of an attack on american soil, and that will be front and center. host: is there a time, if the economy got bad enough, where it would be prioritized above the fence? guest: part of the job of the president is to manage all of these issues. it is not being the president of the economy, or, it is all of these things. -- war, it is all of these things. being a world power has costs that go along with it. at the end of the day, there are costs that need to be born. we need to understand that our we need to understand that our congress needs to be talking about all of these issues in a

ballot. host: lewis in pensacola, florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. call. after world war ii, we got reparations from japan and germany for the cost of the war. iraq is sitting on top of a fortune of oil. have we taken back any money to take back the trillions that were spent in the iraq? if we have, where is it going? guest: first of all, japan and germany did not pay us reparations. to the contrary. to date, it is the largest aid program, the marshall plan. general macarthur was on the ground in japan for the

reconstruction of the japanese state. a lot of the money actually went in the opposite direction. in iraq, which have not taken money from the iraqis. i think we expect the iraqis to stand on their own, based on their ability to sell oil. we expect they will not be asking for assistance from us. as we draw down, we will be able to rely on iraq as an important ally in the middle east, especially as we deal with other issues in the region. writes on twiteter --

he says that it is not a blanket statement. guest: i said the president has nuanced about that. nuanced about that. according to a lot of conversation that i have had, the president is absolutely committed to the drawdown. while conditions will dictate -- what i am afraid we could say, if things go well, we will hear that they are going well and we can draw down. if things are going badly, the matter what happens, we should draw down because we cannot win. draw down because we cannot win. host: oklahoma. independent caller. good morning, joseph. caller: our country is full of

so many problems right now. before, you were talking about the second stimulus. then somebody started talking about corruption in state governments. you can see what i am talking about in california. about in california. when are americans going to take their seats back in congress? politicians are only putting themselves up above all other americans. this back and forth is wasting time. host: do you plan to vote in november? caller: it is the only way that you can make a difference, but there are not many good options

around. guest: i could not agree more. one of the reason the republicans got tossed out is because they lost touch with the american people on a variety of issues. they said one thing, did another, they were the best of the wishes of their constituents. one of the reasons that we could see a shift in the house and senate this year is because democrats who took control of the moment were all so he does of the wishes of their constituents. party leadership was not in touch with grass roots, and that is by you have this -- that is why you have this standing up from, for example, the tea party. i think it is wonderful for america. i hope politicians are listening. host: the pledge to america,

republicans laid out their strategy in virginia. max thornberry, talking about defense efforts. >> we are committed to standing by our friends and interest. we will restore full funding for missile defense and pushed up enforcement of sanctions against iran. finally, we believe the national security of any country depends on its ability to control who and what comes across its borders. we will remove obstacles that some federal agencies have put in front of the border patrol that prevent it from doing its that prevent it from doing its job. and we will ensure the government works with, not against, state and law enforcement to enforce all our laws. host: danielle pletka, what do you hear that you like, what else would you like to hear? guest: i like what i heard, but at the end of the day, i have

heard a lot of things that i'd like. i have been here for 25 years, but the big thing is implementation. the first iran sanctions bill passed in 1996. it contained all the provision that we see people talking about now. the department of state and democratic and success of republican governments were uninterested in enforcement. the truth is, the congress was uninterested in holding their feet to the fire. this year, we have the passage of another iran sanctions bill, more tools in the hand of the president, but we need a convert that is more interested in oversight, insuring that the laws that we pass are enforced. host: as we look at some more points from pledge to america --

when you hear these principles, and you say you want to see actual implementation, do you feel that republican the to go farther and laid out concrete goals and timetables for how they want to see things turn out in the next five years? guest: know, and no matter what party lovelace things out, the president is the commander in chief. the is in charge of our foreign policy. the job of the congress is to write the checks. particularly, when the president enjoys a majority, the congress should not be setting out timetables for which they want to accomplish things. when and if the american people choose to give them the reins of power in the congress, then they

have to act responsibly to execute, working with the president. it should not be about bludgeoning the president. it should always be about cooperation, persuasion, insuring that you stick by your insuring that you stick by your principles and promises to the american people. host: jim. democratic caller. good morning. caller: this is my first opportunity in three years, and i am glad about that. i agree with your guest on two things, military contractors -- it is obscene to have that many contractors in iraq and afghanistan. afghanistan. i have heard some horror stories about that situation. number two, when you are

fighting a war, you cannot separate it from the economy. in order to have a strong defense policy, funded your defense needs, you need to have a strong economy. i voted for the president, but i think his priorities should have been renegotiating these trade policies that we have had over the last 10, 15 years where we are giving more jobs away than we are creating at home. guest: the president has not really been interested in trade issues. i do not entirely agree with the caller, there are some points that i do agree -- i do not agree that trade is the source of the problem. one way or another, it is important that this is a

priority for the president. we rely on selling things to the world. the truth of the matter is, if we do not focus on trade policy, you are not focusing on keeping people's jobs to make things that we sell. about the contractor issue, i do not want to be part of a chorus of people bashing what they do. i think there are lots of contractors who do a terrific job. there are people who put their lives on the line. lots of them take substantial risk for our national security, not for $300,000 a year. i do not want to be unfair to everybody doing these things. the problem is really an over reliance and lack of oversight from the pentagon on these things.

i think that difference is important to distinguish. host: and danielle pletka, foreign and defense studies vice-president at the american enterprise institute. she recently wrote a opinion piece in the washington post. piece in the washington post. reservists are fighting wars with decade-old aircraft's, tankers as all does the president. president. what is the poll? he talked about the longtime budgetary shortfall, but what about the political toll?

in this tight economy, how likely is it that there will be more navy ships, decade-old aircraft that are in need of an update? guest: we are cutting programs, some that we should be, some that we should not be. the clinton administration envisions a 300-plus ship navy, we are now beyond that. we wrote an article relating to this hot on the op ed page. we talked about a finite issue of our security budget, the political questions around it. but the truth is, you cannot look at these things in a vacuum. we live in a world where there are substantial challenges. it is not just that we are fighting a war in afghanistan,

that we are drawn down in iraq. it is not just contending with al qaeda in yemen, somalia and elsewhere. these are the hot challenges. there are a variety of other things. china is investing an enormous amount -- there is a great opinion piece -- talking about china's investment in a blue water navy. . .

caller:.5 there are a couple of areas where i do disagree. a lot of times it is second amendment questions, and also foreign-policy. right now i am just fed up with both parties, because nobody wants to work to get things done. the other entity i am fed up with is our media. we have six or seven major news organizations, and a report on what ever they think will give them the best ratings. -- and they report on what ever they include give them the best ratings. i read about the reporters of our countries that help shape

the world. they used to actually go around and get a story. only time you can get the real story is by going on the internet. just today the news story is what happened on "saturday night live" over the weekend. i wish we had another news organization. cspan's i wis i wish you were oe regular air so other people could see it. guest: i agree with aaron. i believe people are frustrated with the news media. i believe they're frustrated with their rep. with their rep. i think that is part of what this election is about. it cannot just be one election, one call. it has to really be a concerted effort. there has to be a foundation

belts. part of the problem is we see a movement and then annexed rosten. -- and tehthen an exhaustion. at the end of the day, all of the news media organizations are sustained by the market. there are advertisers. q. what commercials on almost everything except c-span and pbs, which is almost supported completely by the federal government. if you do not want to see it, do not watch it. talk about with your colleagues and friends and get out there and be part of a movement that makes things change. host: jane says i would put every penny into missile defense and leave the rest of the world to fend for themselves. guest: i believe we should support missile defense. it was a great disappointment

when the president chose not to support it. i was very sorry to see that happen mosh year, and i hope we will be able to reverse it, but i think america has a role to play in the world. i think we are a shining city on the hill. i think we are an example to people. frankly, we lead better lives that most people anywhere in the world, and that is not something that i believe we should enjoy ourselves. i believe we can be part of the world's greatest economy and helping people will be better lives elsewhere. -- lead better lives elsewhere. people who live in democracies, people who live in freedom tend not to be people who try to attack anybody. >host: weaned from wichita

kansas. it-- wayne from wichita, kansas. caller: how do you suppose we support the constitution with the war on terrorism? did endorse the patriot act, which still allows the the fbi to draw on from calls and seize foreign records and any other sources they can get their hands on in the name of terrorism. how will that keep us safe? it is basically destroying the constitution. guest: i do support the constitution, and i think the protections of the constitution are pretty clear. i think both the obama administration and the bush administration have regard for the protections of the

constitution. i think there are people in the country, whether they are criminals or terrorists, who seek to use the freedoms we have to undermine our way of life, whether it is to steal half your money or our freedoms or threaten the lives of our families and children, i think they seek to use our freedoms to do that and i think the fbi and the cia and other intelligence agencies, for the most part, the irresponsibly in using the laws that are available to them to understand and see what people are up to. -- for the most part use them and irresponsiblresponsiblily ie laws that are available to them to understand and see what people are up to.

if we did not have the ability to listen to people, when not be able to oversee and over here what the guys are talking about. it is chilling the way they talk about killing people, blowing things up. it is a real window into how the groups operate. i think it will reassure and frighten on the one hand the need for intercepts and on the other hand what the intentions of the enemies really are. host: danielle pletka joining us from the american enterprise institute. martin e-mailed us. you say conditions are so bad that we need to get out or conditions are so good we need to go. he asked what would be a legitimate reason to draw down? when is the right time? guest: the right time is when we're seeing security on the ground.

police are not cookie-cutter situations. -- these are not cookie-cutter situations. the will be a challenge to identify exactly what the conditions are that will enable us to draw down. that is why we have a commander in chief who i hope will be listening to them, that my my hope, my prayer that through deserts of is going on now, and if necessary additional troops in the coming months, we will be able to see the taliban and afghanistan and supporters are actually pushed back, they are pushed into a community in moviback and no longer have the ability to plot against a homeland as they did prior to 9/11. host: is there a chance of too

long./? when is it time to sit there can no longer be made a difference in afghanistan? guest: we have to understand there are always costs and benefits to the things we do. we reached a point where we achieved a victory over the soviets in the 1980's. we pulled away, we stopped supporting the country. we basically turned around and said we are done here, and thank you very much. as a result, the taliban and al qaeda establish a toehold. we paid a high price for that. it does require vigilance. it does require development. it does require a lot of effort on the ground. i hope we will not come to the point where we say we sacrifice a lot of blood, but we cannot

win, because i think that will be very costly to us. >host: roth, democratic caller from pennsylvania. and you are on with danielle pletka. caller: the question i would like to ask is off on the political parties in power. during world war ii i was told killer was a member of the conservative party of germany. my question is how many conservative party's is there? we sure do not want another old tried-conservative party is like hitler was in world war ii. i lost a lot of family members because of that political view. guest: he was a member of the national socialist party. that was the nazi party.

i think we need to understand him and the ruler of japan and other fascists. the truth as it does not matter where you come in your party. it was tyranny plain and simple. i do not think of conservatism as anonymous with tyranny in any way. it is important to understand the distinctions. that is really not what we're talking about when we talk about conservatism. we're talking about fiscal responsibility, strong national security, preserving the future for our families and for our children more than we're talking about anything harkening back to history, although i do think you need an awareness of history in order to make corporate decisions about the present. host: ann writes to us by e-

mail. guest: i am told my colleaguby y colleagues at the american enterprise institute that i am not allowed to talk about politics. borrowing is something we need t and to understand and be aware of it and make decisions. host: do we need to be more aware of this in our country about where our money goes and here is the cost for every american household and here's why you think it is worth it. guest: i do think it is important that people understand important that people understand where their tax dollars are

going. their pairing -- they are paying for our government, our soldiers in the field for national security, and the other thing they're paying for is entitlements. that is really the source of our weloes. without those will not be able to make the changes we need. there is no doubt about that. host: john from washington, d.c. caller: i appreciate the discussion, but how does the american taxpayer gauge whether his or her money is being spent wisely when a lot of the information regarding where our money is going is not an open source information that people can read? there was an interesting

article that went for many days on this filing apparatus on the intelligence community. -- on the spiraling apparatus of the intelligence community. it seems like there is a lot of money being spent on defense and intelligence. the second thing is the largest expenditure that republicans do not want to deal with this defense and intelligence. the largest bank democrats did not want to do what is intelligence. guest: thank you. i do think the intelligence budget is a question. it is very hard to get a window into it. we want to preserve operational integrity of the intelligence communities. we do not want everything the cia does to be splashed on the front page of the newspaper,

because you're not only reader at the paper. at the end of the day, every american is not going to sit down and read through the thousands and thousands of budget pages. i worked in the government and the senate foreign relations committee for 10 years, and let me tell you that was the enormous challenge. i do not think americans have the time in their daily lives to do that kind of thing. what that means is you need to let people who you trust,. it will be reading, who will pass a health care bill they have read, who will pass and intelligence are preparations bill that have read. -- the will pass and intelligence preparations bill that they have read. that does not mean the glamorous of getting out on the sunday talk shows come and means the boring stuff of oversight. i think congress has really fallen down on this issue.

as far as defense spending and entitlement reform, all i can say about that is we have to defend mr. -- diminished defense spending pretty steadily over recent years. it is true we had supplemental appropriations for the war we are fighting. during the 1950 boston was close to 10% of gdp. i think that is less of a challenge in terms of trajectory, in terms of where it is going, then entitlements. but i do think that all of these things deserves to be debated openly and people should make decisions for themselves with responsible representatives. > host: wrote a piece, a foreign policy divide among

conservatives. thank you for being with us. coming up next, we'll talk about the segregation in schools. our guest is a professor at george mason university, david armor. >> 9:16 a.m. eastern time. new census data shows a larger than expected impact on florida and new york. florida may gain two house seats in new york may lose two house seats. they would join other states that already were projected to have multiple c changes, those being texas expected to gain forur hosueuse seats and ohio wh unexpected loss of two. president obama on to say that unions have been resistant to change as they tried to protect members, that many are now working with states on reforms,

including charter schools and imposing higher standards and accountability. president is at the white house today. later on he will sign the small- business jobs are. it will restart the business administration recovery lending and includes new small business tax cuts. all affected as of today. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> of the c-span network to provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-christian books and history. it-- non-fiction books and history. we take c-span on the road with digital bus and content vehicle. it is washington your way, the c-span networks. now available and more than 100 million homes. the of the communicators continues our look at privacy

and telecommunications policy with the discussion on strengthening the federal law that limits personal data collection. that is tonight on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: david armor is our guest. we want to talk about desegregation in schools. and where things are out when we talk about integrating schools. there was a recent piece in "the washington post" looking at racial integration and class integration. tell us about your background and history and looking at the idea of desegregating schools. guest: i have been looking at the issue for almost 35 years, ever since i wrote an essay on the evidence of busing, the

first critique of mandatory busing. things have changed a lot. and we went through a long day's a very controversial plans. that calmed down. we did in the great the school substantially under court orders. then we went through a phase where after districts accomplish the integration they were able to get dismissed from court. i work on a lot of those cases. most school districts now are out of the court order. the supreme court, even from the very beginning, they always made it clear there is no constitutional right to a racially-fallin school. -- racially-balanced school. you cannot use race to balance

the school. i think the education commission and the generally feels it is a better way to educate. i have no problem of that. the post's story was about to a bill. there are trying to integrate schools by using party level. i will say busing's for racial reasons was controversial. a lot of parents like their neighbors school. i would say that is probably the fundamental issue. parents do not like to change schools. voluntarily is fine. when you try to require it or force it is always controversial. to tell ouhost: our guest is dad

armor. we have online set up for the rest of the program. -- we have set up phone lines for the rest of the program. we will get to those calls in just a moment. guest: we probably did not have any busing cases outside of the united states. host: mentioned the 2007 supreme court decision. in that chief justice john roberts said the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. guest: that is a strange way to put it. basically he is saying you cannot use race as a primary

means to assign kids to a school. if you are a non-discriminating system, you cannot use race. that is all he is trying to say. host: we got this from last week's monday edition of "the post." >> that is no different than 10 or 20 years ago when parents were told they had to lose their neighborhood school for the sake of racial integration. economic integration from the point of view of parents who

want to stay at their local school -- if they're given a choice, that is one thing, but when they're told they have to go for the sake of the concept of equity to help others, they have a problem with that. it is controversial and probably will not succeed and a lot of cases. host: vivian calling in. guestcaller: good morning. my question is when they did desegregate schools it put black kids at a disadvantage. our teachers be our but spirit anat our butts. when we started going to

integrated schools they took punishment out of the schools. he was not talking about going to school with whites, he was saying he wanted their schools to be equal with other schools. guest: in the research i have done over the years, there are black parents that would like to change and go to an integrated school, but probably 25%. the majority of black parents prefer to stay in their neighborhood school. they want their schools to be equal. icing that has been largely accomplished in most cases. -- i think that has been largely accomplished in most cases.

host: 1 twist in the issue of, one irony in the new system is that schools deemed integrated under old racial classifications are no longer considered perverse under the its geographic criteria. that means that middle-class african-american children at an integrated school may be sent to a poor inner-city school to achieve a geographic balance. guest: there are so many contradictions and the plans that try to reduce these criteria to balance the schools. but the onlet me say one thing t why we're doing this. we have satisfied the legal requirements. there's a group of social sciences that the emphasis better. research shows there may be a small advantage, are really not something you can say that you

will be guaranteed. the other point is parents who are middle class are not been told that their achievement will be better. they have to change schools, lose their neighborhood school, and i really does not sit well with a lot of parents like this parents. host: david armor joining us. here are the numbers to call -- let's go to missouri. a friend as calling us. -- brenda is calling us. caller: i wanted to tell you the

experience my family went through with this. i lost my a nieces and nephews to integrate the kids. my nephew would come home every day beaten up by the black children. i do not know what was going on, i just know that migy in-laws were taking care of them and they went to the school and complain they cannot get anything done about it. they took them out and put them in private schools. guest: that is a common reaction. i do not think physical harm was common. it does not happen, but i do not think that is the predominant concern. i think it is simply the fact of parents in the suburbs are being asked to leave their

community to go to a different school that may not be as good as the one they are at. i do think the issue with a private school -- one of the things that mandatory desegregation did is a cause a lot of white parents to leave school systems and make the school system even harder to integrate. sometimes whole school systems became predominantly minority because of that. i think this is becoming a common problem. host: mike in allentown and, pennsylvania. caller: both of my nephews go to a predominantly black school here. guest: is it their neighborhood school? caller: it is their neighborhood school. the white people have said all blacks are bad and racist. they have paid a price every day.

it is separate. they are getting different treatments from their teachers who are free to be called racist. this side with the blackene kid over and over. it is reverse discrimination. guest: this is really not the issue of boston that the parent is complaining about. -- not htthe issue of bussing the parent is complaining about. host: sometimes there will be different social groups within the school. sometimes there will be african american social clubs and other of the cities that gravitate together and socialize together. is that a sign that desegregation has failed or a national product of high school?

? guest: a product of high school? . kids do this. it is very common. black kids have their tables at lunch, and white kids have theirs. it does not mean there are a lot of cross-racial friendships. host: david armor is a public policy professor at george mason university. and let's go to rawlings, in wyoming. david, and w. can you please turn down your tv so we can hear you ok? caller: thank you. guest: no desegregation and wyoming is there? caller: this is charles.

i lived in atlanta. the worst thing they did was integrate the schools, because what happened is once the schools were integrated, all of the black kids were put in one class, and it was not about education anymore. when we were going to an integrated school, we got a better education. guest: are you black or white? caller: i am black. guest: the atlanta situation, not only the city but the county in particular, a major desegregation plans and the area. it is now predominantly black county, partly as a result of residential changes and desegregation.

here is another black parent that is expressing -- he did not like it because there's a lot of turmoil and anxiety. that reflects the fact that the desire to go to integrated schools only shared by a minority of black parents. this is a good example. host: is of desegregation dead? it looks at the idea of whether it is time to move on from this or did it succeed and fail? -- and did this succeed or fail? guest: there have been papers written arguing there have been achievements. it is really hard to summarize, i would say overall there may be a small benefit. there is a lot of cases where there is not. i didn't think a small benefit

from the desegregation justifies the enormous cost in terms of lack of public support for public schools. there may be some help, but i think there are better ways to help them to focus strictly on diversity. -- than than to focus strictly on diversity. caller: my only comment is that i am 66 years old, and when i went to high school i was jusbud 30 miles per day pass to dwight high school so-- we we so we, te blacks, did not have to go to an all-white high school. what is the big deal?

guest: that was one of the practices that everyone agrees, or lease most agree -- or at least most agree had to be ended. i think there is no question you are right, that is absolutely not correct. that is an improper use of bussing. now we are past those states and school districts are not doing that anymore, do we still have to have an integrated schools racially or economically? is there enough advantage to justify the controversy and unhappiness that parents will express over them? host: comment from twitter. he asked how are most schools funded? guest: individual party levels,

individual income and education of the child's parent strongly of the child's parent strongly court correlate with the achievement. my research shows it is the background of the parent. the other question was about funding. host: a reminder of how the school is funded. where does the money come from? guest: these days a lot of money comes from the state because of losses on equity of resources. right now probably the state supports 50% to 60% of education and local support is the rest. host: the tier crème macchio. -- let's hear from matthew. caller: al is of desegregation

justified? with college desegregation one pretty much we are alienating the minority population from white schools. guest: that is interesting because my first study was about the voluntary bussing program from boston in to public schools. we were a host family port of black tiles from boston. -- for a black child from boston. and this was a culture shock for many of the students. our study showed that attitude towards whites, more negative for the black students, and my explanation was the culture shock, the difference they are not competing at a much different level. their average of b greaderades n

the boston school went to pic grades in those schools. this was all done initially because of discrimination. we had to go through a phase where there was desegregation assignment ordered by courts in order to get past segregation. host: saying that when white children went to some of the hardest-its most improper school as part of the exchange, it will have americans to what was the condition and some of the schools. guest: i think that is partly true, but again, there is question of whether in the long run your doing more harm than

good in the long run? you have to have public support for the program and policies you are pursuing. mandatory buses has never been popular. it was never expected, therefore it is not a viable way to run public schools. host: judd sesse calling from ta bay, florida. caller: i am 30 years old, and when i was in grade school i was jubussed in order to integrate. do you ever have studies to look at what the overall effect on society is as far as segregation? if we are segregated at a young age, we will probably be more likely to sell who segregate as you get older. -- self segregate as you get older.

guest: there is no question of attitudes have gotten better as a result of these experiences. i think you have to say the experience of ending forced segregation and going through at a time when there was controversy, but there was much more contacts, particularly in the south. the stock benefited the most -- the stock benefited the most. -- the south to benefit the most. do we really have to have the mandatory diversity programs? host: david armor is a public policy professor at george mason university. we will go to our next call.

caller: good morning. ai sent the december edition -- desegregation did a lot of harm. and there were a lot of parents against putting their children on buses early in the morning and sending them away for them to get a better education. guest: are you a black parent? caller: yes, i am. and i made sure my kids -- remove to a community where they could walk to school. -- we moved to a community where they could walk to school. the schools and the churches were the foundation of the community, and when you do not have that, you really lose a lot. thank you very much.

guest: another great comments from a black parent that was not in favor of having their kids saubussed 46 edition desen. this is often overlooked in the debate. host: robert burns writes that one parent in this area who has not caught in the first tours of where to send the child to school is belinda. é3

the other thought was to bus the black kids to white schools. he sold out and said to go ahead and bus them. he got a supreme judge-ship out

of that. he was a total sellout. host: where did you grow up? caller: of side of san francisco. my second grade teacher called me up to ask what segregation was and i did not know. guest: there is no question that there was segregation. legal segregation in the south and some other cities around the country that had to be stopped. i think that this is what the controversy is today. . .

host: let's go"a to california. diane joins us from there. good morning. caller: i just moved back from georgia, which is walton county. they had the last clenching in georgia. -- last lynching in georgia.

the black population is spread out in these counties. i was there when all this happens. my daughter just graduated from high school. she was the valedictorian in an integrated school. i do agree with the lot of your information, the statistics you came up with, but i still have a question about what the south will do if bussing is solved. there has to be another way, because it is stopped, and the court orders are follow-through, i believe the white majority in the states will continue

shenanigans so that the black population will end up with a less than equal opportunity with the whites. i hope that you did not stop here and found particularl paul turner this. guest: you make a good point, and obviously have been very near where a lot of white plate occurred. -- white plight occur. there is residential and demographic changes that keeps happening, and we cannot stop those. there is no court constitutional requirement that you have to have racial balance in school. if you can bring it about the best way you can through voluntary programs or some of the things that justice kennedy approves of, that is fine.

it is not something we can do anymore. people are going to segregate themselves to some extent by housing choices. the best thing to do is have voluntary programs in schools, choice programs where people can choose different schools, try to find a school that it's what their needs are best. -- that fits what their needs are best. we need to keep in mind the need for diversity, but we have to be careful how we go about it did make sure it is consistent with our constitution. caller: i am from texas. i just moved to new york not that long ago. i am from austin, texas. i am too young to have known segregation, but i went to at magna school in texas. -- to a magent school in texas. it was integrated because it is

less than 20 years ago. i cannot imagine not knowing my hispanic and asian students. i cannot imagine being separated or being superior or giving a superior education because of segregation. the fact that i am not with -- surrounded by people that are just like myself that my education is better. i think because of the diversity, because of the eclectic nature of the backgrounds my education was that much more complete. guest: u.n. there voluntarily -- you went there voluntarily, right? caller: sure.

guest: i wish every school district, many of them, have voluntary plans. caller: the thing is it was a place and a less than desirable neighborhood. it was in the middle of one of the poor neighborhoods. guest: that is the way to do it. it will attract middle-class kids like yourself and others to the school. that is a really good way to do it. i applaud austin for having a school like that. caller: good morning. i am almost 70 years old. i just went to my 50th class reunion. i was born and raised in justin city, kansas. the list close to fort riley, kansas. -- it is close to fort riley,

kansas. the use to us ed to buss in kidm fort riley every day. they attended our school system and junior high and high school, and everything was fine. we did not have any problems. we got along fine. we played different towns around the community. there were fewer black kids but we have terrific communications. i have a year book that has moved gingrinewt gingrich. i have this whole thing going south in the 1980's under ronald reagan.

it was just like a seeping wound. it seeps up again, and here they want to isolate the kids. they want to separate them. host: let's get a response from dr. armor. guest: i did not want to separate kids. you had an integrated school, that is good. topeka is where controversy went on for years and years about bussing, but they eventually got a voluntary program that was quite successful. there certainly are instances where it is used, not where it is used, not specifically to integrate schools but for reasons of space and where the schools are. host: new orleans, louisiana.

bill joins us. caller: the history is really fascinating. it sounds like you -- white plight was an issue in the south. people left areas because of race, not just because the schools were bad. the schools were bad because there are bacy were black schooy were not given the funds. i did not hear a lot of people complain about it back then. what they did is moved out of the areas. they moved from the city itself, and the whole issue is that is too bad so let's have separate schools.

guest: that is certainly not what i am saying. we should not have separate schools. right now the supreme court says we cannot use race as a major way to assign kids to school. that is unconstitutional. that does not mean that we do not want as much integration as we can accomplish by other means. that still is the goal of most educators and social scientists. host: there is a piece exploring desegregation anti- party schools and high-poverty areas. the report says the face enormous challenges. what is the solution in your opinion of building of the quality of some of the school's?